Jump to content

How America Swallows


Manscape
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-po...oc_b_97598.html

The Pentagon's Corrupt Sock Puppet "Military Analysts" Exposed

In Sunday's New York Times, investigative reporter David Barstow exposes television's "military analysts" on the Iraq War as sock puppets of the Pentagon who consciously peddle the Bush administration's talking points on Iraq while hiding their own vested economic interest in selling the public on the Bush administration's happy talk about the war.

This very long and very well-documented story lays bare the most blatantly obnoxious feature of the "Military-Industrial-Media Complex" which ensures that the airwaves convey the administration's major messages on the war day in a day out. The story should mobilize the blogosphere and news media figures who still have some integrity to demand immediate reform of a massively corrupt network system of covering military affairs.

For starters, the networks should be forced to fire every "military analyst" who has been recruited accepted all-expenses-paid trips to Iraq, uncritically mouthed the administration talking points while concealing their special relationship or maintained vested financial interests in Pentagon contracts through business relationships with contractors.

Based on 8,000 pages of email messages, transcripts and records, Barstow recounts a successful effort by Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon to use retired military officers to create a "media Trojan horse" on the Iraq War. Not only did the "military analysts" routinely violate basic ethical standards of journalism by accepting trips completely arranged and paid for the administration; they were consciously participating in its strategy to manipulate public opinion by regurgitating the pro-war arguments they were given in top-level official briefings -- which they had to promise to keep secret.

But even worse, Barstow shows how they had a personal financial stake in parroting the administration's war propaganda. He reports that several dozen military analysts who appear constantly on Fox, CNN and other networks and invariably support the administration's line "represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants."

Even when they knew they were being fed Pentagon BS, these agents of the war system could not utter a critical word about administration policy. They were afraid of retribution from Pentagon officials who could affect contracts for which their companies were competing. One corrupted former television analyst told Barstow he refrained from even the slightest criticism of the Pentagon's policies because of the fear "some four-star could call up and say, 'Kill that contract.'"

Several of these officers told Barstow that even the "mildest criticism" would bring telephone calls expressing official displeasure within minutes of being on the air. When one analyst went so far as to say that the United States was "not on a good glide path right now" in Iraq, the Pentagon immediately "fired" him from the analysts group which had received privileged access to high-ranking administration officials.

In the most egregious cases, such as retired Air Force general Thomas G. McInerney of Fox News, "analysts" operated just like employees of the Pentagon. McInenery assured the Pentagon in an e-mail in late 2006 that he would use in his on-air appearances the latest talking points that he had just been given.

The story of the Pentagon's "media Trojan horse" should bring overwhelming public pressure for the immediate termination of any "military analyst" who has been compromised by links with the Pentagon and/or its business allies. The television networks should adopt transparent rules about who can and can't be hired as analysts on military issues that would keep out paid agents of the war system. Unfortunately the networks themselves appear to be such an integral part of that system that they couldn't care less about conflicts of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-po...oc_b_97598.html

The Pentagon's Corrupt Sock Puppet "Military Analysts" Exposed

In Sunday's New York Times, investigative reporter David Barstow exposes television's "military analysts" on the Iraq War as sock puppets of the Pentagon who consciously peddle the Bush administration's talking points on Iraq while hiding their own vested economic interest in selling the public on the Bush administration's happy talk about the war.

This very long and very well-documented story lays bare the most blatantly obnoxious feature of the "Military-Industrial-Media Complex" which ensures that the airwaves convey the administration's major messages on the war day in a day out. The story should mobilize the blogosphere and news media figures who still have some integrity to demand immediate reform of a massively corrupt network system of covering military affairs.

For starters, the networks should be forced to fire every "military analyst" who has been recruited accepted all-expenses-paid trips to Iraq, uncritically mouthed the administration talking points while concealing their special relationship or maintained vested financial interests in Pentagon contracts through business relationships with contractors.

Based on 8,000 pages of email messages, transcripts and records, Barstow recounts a successful effort by Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon to use retired military officers to create a "media Trojan horse" on the Iraq War. Not only did the "military analysts" routinely violate basic ethical standards of journalism by accepting trips completely arranged and paid for the administration; they were consciously participating in its strategy to manipulate public opinion by regurgitating the pro-war arguments they were given in top-level official briefings -- which they had to promise to keep secret.

But even worse, Barstow shows how they had a personal financial stake in parroting the administration's war propaganda. He reports that several dozen military analysts who appear constantly on Fox, CNN and other networks and invariably support the administration's line "represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants."

Even when they knew they were being fed Pentagon BS, these agents of the war system could not utter a critical word about administration policy. They were afraid of retribution from Pentagon officials who could affect contracts for which their companies were competing. One corrupted former television analyst told Barstow he refrained from even the slightest criticism of the Pentagon's policies because of the fear "some four-star could call up and say, 'Kill that contract.'"

Several of these officers told Barstow that even the "mildest criticism" would bring telephone calls expressing official displeasure within minutes of being on the air. When one analyst went so far as to say that the United States was "not on a good glide path right now" in Iraq, the Pentagon immediately "fired" him from the analysts group which had received privileged access to high-ranking administration officials.

In the most egregious cases, such as retired Air Force general Thomas G. McInerney of Fox News, "analysts" operated just like employees of the Pentagon. McInenery assured the Pentagon in an e-mail in late 2006 that he would use in his on-air appearances the latest talking points that he had just been given.

The story of the Pentagon's "media Trojan horse" should bring overwhelming public pressure for the immediate termination of any "military analyst" who has been compromised by links with the Pentagon and/or its business allies. The television networks should adopt transparent rules about who can and can't be hired as analysts on military issues that would keep out paid agents of the war system. Unfortunately the networks themselves appear to be such an integral part of that system that they couldn't care less about conflicts of interest.

I needed a good laugh today and this idiot came through.

huffington post; the most vile and corrupt website that exists. NY Slimes; one of the worst rags

in the U.S. They're so far left they've lost all objectivity in their reporting.

Why not quote from Al Jazeera or Pravda, you'll probably be more accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I needed a good laugh today and this idiot came through.

huffington post; the most vile and corrupt website that exists. NY Slimes; one of the worst rags

in the U.S. They're so far left they've lost all objectivity in their reporting.

Why not quote from Al Jazeera or Pravda, you'll probably be more accurate.

:blink: Huffington reports on the New York Times article and according to the quote above, the content of these sources is not to be trusted because of the reporting entities!

I'd like everyone to observe the Bush deadender mentality of messageboard response that asserts to control/discount what people read!

This "2smart" person doesn't address the content of my posting and instead he zeroes in on the messenger including myself and expects he's neutralized the MESSAGE!

You may recall the tawdry "National Enquirer" being out in front on two big stories, Jesse Jackson's lovechild and Moonface Hillary's brother in yet another Clinton scandal............yes THAT National Enquirer commonly frontpaged by the frill of celebrity misery:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...nyt&emc=rss

I use www.antiwar.com daily and I recommend it to EVERYONE who wants to get informed beyond the limits of America dumbed down news input. In addition to anti-war opinion articles and blogs (Ron Paul is a regular contributor) it's a collection of hyperlinks from EVERY possible point in the spectrum of political sentiment. How curious it is when some shmuck bellows, "you got that from 'antiwar dot com" you anti-America bastard!"........and the antiwar.com link is from William Krystol's "The Weekly Standard"!!!!

To end in a positive manner exposing a nitwit's effort to ignore the message and attack the messenger, I will assert that ALL news sources must be considered, AlJazeera included. Why would ANYONE but a bigoted nincompoop avoid published/expressed views on common human concerns that may not agree with one's opinion? This is why Jimmy Carter is to be applauded for his diplomacy visiting legally elected Hamas and Barack Obama for his intentions to have a DIALOGUE with all nations including monkey boy's so called, "axis of evil."

Above all, please be sure to read the content that begins this thread:

The Pentagon's Corrupt Sock Puppet "Military Analysts" Expose

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-po...oc_b_97598.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
:blink: Huffington reports on the New York Times article and according to the quote above, the content of these sources is not to be trusted because of the reporting entities!

I'd like everyone to observe the Bush deadender mentality of messageboard response that asserts to control/discount what people read!

This "2smart" person doesn't address the content of my posting and instead he zeroes in on the messenger including myself and expects he's neutralized the MESSAGE!

You may recall the tawdry "National Enquirer" being out in front on two big stories, Jesse Jackson's lovechild and Moonface Hillary's brother in yet another Clinton scandal............yes THAT National Enquirer commonly frontpaged by the frill of celebrity misery:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...nyt&emc=rss

I use www.antiwar.com daily and I recommend it to EVERYONE who wants to get informed beyond the limits of America dumbed down news input. In addition to anti-war opinion articles and blogs (Ron Paul is a regular contributor) it's a collection of hyperlinks from EVERY possible point in the spectrum of political sentiment. How curious it is when some shmuck bellows, "you got that from 'antiwar dot com" you anti-America bastard!"........and the antiwar.com link is from William Krystol's "The Weekly Standard"!!!!

To end in a positive manner exposing a nitwit's effort to ignore the message and attack the messenger, I will assert that ALL news sources must be considered, AlJazeera included. Why would ANYONE but a bigoted nincompoop avoid published/expressed views on common human concerns that may not agree with one's opinion? This is why Jimmy Carter is to be applauded for his diplomacy visiting legally elected Hamas and Barack Obama for his intentions to have a DIALOGUE with all nations including monkey boy's so called, "axis of evil."

Above all, please be sure to read the content that begins this thread:

The Pentagon's Corrupt Sock Puppet "Military Analysts" Expose

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-po...oc_b_97598.html

See kids, this is why you want to stay away from drugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
:blink: Huffington reports on the New York Times article and according to the quote above, the content of these sources is not to be trusted because of the reporting entities!

I'd like everyone to observe the Bush deadender mentality of messageboard response that asserts to control/discount what people read!

This "2smart" person doesn't address the content of my posting and instead he zeroes in on the messenger including myself and expects he's neutralized the MESSAGE!

You may recall the tawdry "National Enquirer" being out in front on two big stories, Jesse Jackson's lovechild and Moonface Hillary's brother in yet another Clinton scandal............yes THAT National Enquirer commonly frontpaged by the frill of celebrity misery:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...nyt&emc=rss

I use www.antiwar.com daily and I recommend it to EVERYONE who wants to get informed beyond the limits of America dumbed down news input. In addition to anti-war opinion articles and blogs (Ron Paul is a regular contributor) it's a collection of hyperlinks from EVERY possible point in the spectrum of political sentiment. How curious it is when some shmuck bellows, "you got that from 'antiwar dot com" you anti-America bastard!"........and the antiwar.com link is from William Krystol's "The Weekly Standard"!!!!

To end in a positive manner exposing a nitwit's effort to ignore the message and attack the messenger, I will assert that ALL news sources must be considered, AlJazeera included. Why would ANYONE but a bigoted nincompoop avoid published/expressed views on common human concerns that may not agree with one's opinion? This is why Jimmy Carter is to be applauded for his diplomacy visiting legally elected Hamas and Barack Obama for his intentions to have a DIALOGUE with all nations including monkey boy's so called, "axis of evil."

Above all, please be sure to read the content that begins this thread:

The Pentagon's Corrupt Sock Puppet "Military Analysts" Expose

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-po...oc_b_97598.html

Manscape, you're arguing with someone who has all the brain power of a ten-year old and all the objectivity of a teenage male out on a date with the hottest girl in school. Not that 2dim4words would ever be so lucky. Why waste your time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith
I needed a good laugh today and this idiot came through.

huffington post; the most vile and corrupt website that exists. NY Slimes; one of the worst rags

in the U.S. They're so far left they've lost all objectivity in their reporting.

Why not quote from Al Jazeera or Pravda, you'll probably be more accurate.

Once again you have shown your ignorance. Al-Jazeera, through out the rest of the world is a well respected and accurate news reporting agency. There is an english speaking version but guess what? our cable and satellite companies won't carry it. Gee, I wonder why? You are a sadly misinformed little worm. Do you think that only the US has good news agencies and among those you only watch FOX? Guess what, the news in the US is bought and paid for. Maybe you should acutally take the time to do some research before you open your vile little pie hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
See kids, this is why you want to stay away from drugs.

Seeing if that kind of line works off the playground, too? Sorry, that's going to be a no. You better stay with the kids, they're more your speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plot thickens.........how America swallows.............

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/25/pbs-br...gon-propaganda/

PBS breaks ‘media blackout’ of NYT story on Pentagon propaganda.»

On Sunday, The New York Times published an explosive report exposing the Pentagon’s secret campaign to use analysts in order to “generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.” Since that time, TV news organizations have largely been silent on their role in the propaganda. Ari Melber notes that last night, PBS’s Newshour finally broke this blackout, but couldn’t convince the other networks to participate:

JUDY WOODRUFF: And for the record, we invited Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC to participate, but they declined our offer or did not respond.

(click the link above for the rest of the story including video)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Once again you have shown your ignorance. Al-Jazeera, through out the rest of the world is a well respected and accurate news reporting agency. There is an english speaking version but guess what? our cable and satellite companies won't carry it. Gee, I wonder why? You are a sadly misinformed little worm. Do you think that only the US has good news agencies and among those you only watch FOX? Guess what, the news in the US is bought and paid for. Maybe you should acutally take the time to do some research before you open your vile little pie hole.

"The news in the U.S. is bought and paid for"? It must be that vast right-wing conspiracy again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The news in the U.S. is bought and paid for"? It must be that vast right-wing conspiracy again.

When are you Bush deadenders getting a new line?

I would never expect you Bush deadenders to discuss the consolidation of mainstream U.S. journalism and the subsequent lockstep taboo on certain subject matter. Why would you shine light on your own crimes?

But really, when are you Bush deadenders getting a new line when you HISS on messageboards?

Perhaps it's a reflection of the stagnation and corrosion your party represents that you rattle the same old, same old?

In closing, check out the Rish Limpie posting elsewhere on KOTW. I know you Bush deadenders will want to reead about your media hero!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
"The news in the U.S. is bought and paid for"? It must be that vast right-wing conspiracy again.

No, they're just stupid ditto-heads who do whatever their new messiah Rush Limbaugh tells them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Bush Deadenders.......it's far too much to read surely cutting into your Rish Limpie masturbation time.........so therefore............. THE FOLLOWING MUST BE LIES!!!!

(you could bleat something about the New York Times being anti-American and let it go at that, no?)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...iams/index.html

Wednesday April 30, 2008 07:00 EDT

Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story

It has now been more than ten days since the New York Times exposed the Pentagon's domestic propaganda program involving retired generals and, still, not a single major news network has even mentioned the story to their viewers, let alone responded to the numerous questions surrounding their own behavior. This steadfast blackout occurs despite the fact that the Pentagon propaganda program almost certainly violates numerous federal laws; both Democratic presidential candidates sternly denounced the Pentagon's conduct; and Congressional inquiries are already underway, all of which forced the Pentagon to announce that it suspended its program.

Still, there has not been a peep from the major news networks at the center of the storm, the integrity of whose reporting on the Iraq war is directly implicated by this story. Even establishment media defender Howard Kurtz called their ongoing failure to cover this story "pathetic."

Like Fox and CBS, NBC News outright refused to answer any questions about the allegations when asked by the NYT's David Bartsow, and its prime time anchor, Brian Williams, has delivered seven broadcasts since the story was published and has not uttered a word to NBC's viewers about any of it. Yesterday, I wrote about an entry on Williams' blog -- which he calls "The Daily Nightly" -- in which Williams found the time to mock one frivolous cultural puff piece after the next in the Sunday edition of the NYT, even as he still had refused even to acknowledge the expose in last Sunday's NYT that calls into serious question the truthfulness and reliability of his "journalism."

After I wrote about Williams' blog item yesterday, his blog was deluged with commenters angrily demanding to know why he has failed to address the NYT expose. In response, Williams wrote a new blog item last night in which he purports -- finally -- to respond to the story, and I can't recommend highly enough that it be read by anyone wanting to understand how our establishment journalist class thinks and acts.

The essence of Williams' response: he did absolutely nothing wrong. Nor did any of the military analysts used by NBC News. Nor did his network. These are all honest, patriotic men whose integrity is beyond reproach. Here's but a sampling of Williams' defense:

A few of you correctly noted I’ve yet to respond to the recent Times front-page article on the military analysts employed by the television networks, including this one.

I read the article with great interest. I've worked with two men since I've had this job -- both retired, heavily-decorated U.S. Army four-star Generals -- Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey. As I'm sure is obvious to even a casual viewer, I quickly entered into a close friendship with both men. . . .

All I can say is this: these two guys never gave what I considered to be the party line. They were tough, honest critics of the U.S. military effort in Iraq. If you've had any exposure to retired officers of that rank (and we've not had any five-star Generals in the modern era) then you know: these men are passionate patriots. In my dealings with them, they were also honest brokers. . . .

At no time did our analysts, on my watch or to my knowledge, attempt to push a rosy Pentagon agenda before our viewers. I think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that.

Williams argues that the two retired Generals whom he identified in particular -- Downing and McCaffrey -- voiced "harsh criticism of the Rumsfeld Pentagon and the war effort." As proof, he cites a McCaffrey quote from 2006 -- more then 3 years after we invaded Iraq -- in which McCaffrey said there was a civil war there and that "it's a very bad situation, and it's getting worse." He also said Downing was angry that we didn't use more troops for the invasion.

That is the sum and substance of Williams' response to allegations that these analysts were presented as "independent" despite having multiple political and financial ties which negated their independence. There is no indication that he has any plans to tell his viewers about the story. And he seems to think that this smug, dismissive response resolves the questions surrounding the behavior of NBC News. It doesn't. If fact, Williams' response -- and his citation to these two specific retired Generals -- raises far more questions than it answers.

* * * * *

Both McCaffrey and Downing were about as far from "independent" as a news analyst could possibly be. On November 15, 2002, a press release was issued announcing the formation of something called "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," which was devoted "to advocat[ing] freedom and democracy in Iraq." Its list of 25 members was filled to the brim with the standard cast of war-hungry neocons -- including Bill Kristol, Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle, Leon Wieseltier, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Eliot Cohen, and anti-Muslim "scholar" Bernard Lewis. Both Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing -- the two extremely independent "news sources" hailed yesterday by Brian Williams -- were two of its 25 founding members.

On the day of its formation, the group announced that they would meet later that day with then-National Security Adviser Condolleeza Rice to discuss Iraq. The group's President was quoted in the Press Release as follows: "We believe it is time to confront the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime by liberating the Iraqi people." Here was its stated purpose:

The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq will engage in educational and advocacy efforts to mobilize domestic and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny. The Committee is committed to work beyond the liberation of Iraq to the reconstruction of its economy and the establishment of political pluralism, democratic institutions, and the rule of law.

So this was a group devoted to building domestic support in the U.S. for the invasion of Iraq through so-called "educational and advocacy efforts." And NBC News then hired both Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing as supposedly "independent analysts" to opine to NBC's viewers about the war, and did so without ever once disclosing this affiliation to their viewers, without ever disclosing that they were dedicated to propagandizing on behalf of the Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq.

Beyond their ideological affiliations that negated their "independence," both McCaffrey and Downing had substantial ties to the defense industry which gave them strong financial incentives to advocate for the war. Worse, these ties were detailed all the way back in April of 2003 by The Nation, in an article entitled "TV's Conflicted Experts:

But some of these ex-generals also have ideological or financial stakes in the war. Many hold paid advisory board and executive positions at defense companies and serve as advisers for groups that promoted an invasion of Iraq. Their offscreen commitments raise questions about whether they are influenced by more than just "a lifetime of experience and objectivity"--in the words of Lieut. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a military analyst for NBC News--as they explain the risks of this war to the American people.

McCaffrey and his NBC colleague Col. Wayne Downing, who reports nightly from Kuwait, are both on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a Washington-based lobbying group formed last October to bolster public support for a war. Its stated mission is to "engage in educational advocacy efforts to mobilize US and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein," and among its targets are the US and European media. The group is chaired by Bruce Jackson, former vice president of defense giant Lockheed Martin (manufacturer of the F-117 Nighthawk, the F-16 Fighting Falcon and other aircraft in use in Iraq), and includes such neocon luminaries as former Defense Policy Board chair Richard Perle. Downing has also served as an unpaid lobbyist and adviser to the Iraqi National Congress, an Administration-backed (and bankrolled) opposition group that stands to profit from regime change in Iraq.

NBC News has yet to disclose those or other involvements that give McCaffrey a vested interest in Operation Iraqi Freedom. McCaffrey, who commanded an infantry division in the Gulf War, is now on the board of Mitretek, Veritas Capital and two Veritas companies, Raytheon Aerospace and Integrated Defense Technologies--all of which have multimillion-dollar government defense contracts. Despite that, IDT is floundering -- its stock price has fallen by half since March 2002 -- a situation that one stock analyst says war could remedy. Since IDT is a specialist in tank upgrades, the company stands to benefit significantly from a massive ground war.

The same article details that Downing had many of the same problems, including the fact that he sat on the "board of directors at Metal Storm Ltd., a ballistics-technology company that has contracts with US and Australian defense departments." None of this was ever disclosed to NBC's viewers -- not once -- as McCaffrey and Downing were paraded out by Williams and other NBC reporters as "independent" military analysts touting the need to invade and occupy Iraq.

* * * * *

In fact, rather than disclose these obviously relevant allegiances, Williams -- throughout 2003 and well after -- presented McCaffrey to his then-CNBC audience as the definitively objective, independent analyst, with introductions like this one, from the November 24, 2003 broadcast, as extremely typical:

WILLIAMS: Retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey joins us from Seattle tonight. He earned three Purple Hearts in Vietnam, two Distinguished Service Crosses, was a division commander during the first Gulf War.

These days, he's a professor at West Point and an NBC News military analyst, and I know him well enough to know that he's going to want to say a word here, General, and please feel free, about the value of sergeant majors in the U.S. Army who are as talented and as beloved as that man.

GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY (RET.), U.S. ARMY, NBC MILITARY ANALYST: Well, you know, you're right on the money, Brian.

As always, there was not a word to NBC's viewers that this "NBC Military analyst" was on the Board of Advisers of a neocon group devoted to persuading Americans of the need to invade and occupy Iraq, nor a word about his financial investments in the policies he was advocating. Just look at the completely deceitful way that Williams presented McCaffrey repeatedly, and the type of "independent analysis" to which NBC viewers were consequently subjected. From the September 8, 2003 broadcast:

WILLIAMS: We are joined now from Washington by retired four-star general Barry McCaffrey, one of the foremost military experts currently in civilian life. He was a division commander during the first Gulf War, now a professor at West Point, and an NBC News military analyst.

General, let's start with what Senator Harkin just said. You were far from a protester of Vietnam, you were on the other end of it as a combatant. He said it smells like Vietnam, so do the bills coming in for it. Do you concur at all?

GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY (RET.), U.S. ARMY: No, not at all. I think there could be two inept metaphors in Vietnam applied to either Central America, Iraq, or any of the current crises we're facing. That was a very different, externally supported war by a homogeneous people who were essentially on the tail end of a struggle against colonialism, using communism as a vector.

My gosh, this is nothing like that. I think Iraq -- By the way, just to get to the heart of the matter, Brian, I actually think the president's speech was an item of tremendous political courage. He has now faced up to -- what I think he was getting from Secretary Rumsfeld was war on the cheap.

And now he's saying, We got to succeed, we got to have resources, forces, U.N. legitimacy. This is a step in the right direction . . . . But we better stay the course, or we're in trouble..

Here is the dialogue those two shared on Mission Accomplished Day -- May 1, 2003:

WILLIAMS: With us tonight to look back at the military operation and perhaps what today means as a media event and a significant event in the lives of the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen is retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey who, of course, commanded the 24th Mechanized during the first Gulf War. He is an NBC News analyst on military affairs.

General, let's start with today. The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing. This must be very meaningful to the United States military.

General BARRY McCAFFREY (US Army): Oh, yeah, I think it's a huge shot in the arm to the morale of--of the entire armed forces, never mind to remind Americans why we pay for these 10-carrier battle groups. I mean, this is a -- just an enormous source of military power and the ability to influence events sometimes without fighting.

In the weeks leading up to the invasion, McCaffrey was frequently on numerous NBC shows, including Williams', presented as an independent expert. On the February 18, 2003 edition of Williams' CNBC show, he was on with fellow war-supporter Michael O'Hanlon -- that was "balance" -- to talk about the risks of the war, and McCaffrey said:

Well, I think that the Iraqis have no good options, and so what we're going to do, we will encounter chemical weapons. It will be abject misery. Some will be killed by them. It won't change the military operation. The biological weapons we hope will be deterred by some pretty strong background threats. I think what we're going to have to do is go in and take down 60,000 Republican Guard troops in stiff urban combat in Baghdad and Tikrit, and that's going to look, at rifle company commander level, like World War II for about five days.

I could go on for pages printing similar exchanges Williams had with McCaffrey throughout 2003. The same is true for Downing, who was repeatedly presented to NBC viewers as an independent analyst without his multiple political and financial affiliations ever once being disclosed (Months before the war began, in November, McCaffrey was a guest on an MSNBC show to tout the launch of the new pro-war group; when McCaffrey was presented as an independent analyst throughout 2003 and beyond, that connection was never mentioned).

It's true, as Williams points out as though it is exculpatory, that -- like Bill Kristol and plenty of other hard-core war supporters -- McCaffrey wanted more U.S. troops in Iraq. He even signed a 2005 letter from PNAC -- along with the likes of Kristol, the mighty Kagan Brothers, Max Boot, Frank Gaffney, Michael O'Hanlon and Peter Beinart -- demanding that more troops be deployed to Iraq (the Kagans, O'Hanlon and Beinart -- despite their relative youth -- were all unavailable for duty).

It really ought to go without saying by now that advocating more troops for the War hardly made one a "war critic" nor did it demonstrate independence from the Bush administration's propaganda campaign for the War. To the contrary, the fact that both McCaffrey and Downing had financial ties to the defense industry which would stand to profit from policies entailing more defense spending further calls into question their independence, rather than resolves those questions. As The Nation reported back in 2003:

McCaffrey has recently emerged as the most outspoken military critic of Rumsfeld's approach to the war, but his primary complaint is that "armor and artillery don't count" enough. In McCaffrey's recent MSNBC commentary, he exclaimed enthusiastically, "Thank God for the Abrams tank and . . . the Bradley fighting vehicle," and added for good measure that the "war isn't over until we've got a tank sitting on top of Saddam's bunker." In March alone, IDT [on whose Board of Directors McCaffrey sat] received more than $14 million worth of contracts relating to Abrams and Bradley machinery parts and support hardware.

At the very least, NBC viewers ought to have been told of the numerous, substantial ties which these "independent" military analysts had.

* * * * *

What makes all of this even more astounding -- and what makes Williams' glib dismissal of these issues yesterday all the more indefensible -- is that all of these conflicts and all of this deceit was well-known long before the NYT article added more details. As I've repeatedly noted, concerns over the use by news networks of retired Generals masquerading as "independent analysts" were raised for years in multiple venues -- including by the NYT and by the astoundingly prescient Colman McCarthy in The Washington Post, and the networks simply ignored those concerns, marching along with their pro-war parade of military analysts.

But far worse, the specific, undisclosed conflicts of both McCaffrey and Downing -- the two Generals cited by Williams to prove NBC did nothing wrong -- were disclosed more than four years ago by The Nation. And there is no way that NBC and Williams can claim not to have known about them, since The Nation described those ties as specifically as could be. Did NBC ask the Generals about these ties? Did they consider disclosing them to their viewers? Did the undislcosed ties violate NBC News policy? Does NBC have policies now to prevent this from happening again? Who knows? NBC refuses to comment on any of this.

In fact, it appears that NBC was informed of these specific conflicts by The Nation four years ago. From The Nation article:

The networks don't seem too concerned about what the analysts do on their own time. "We are employing them for their military expertise, not their political views," Elena Nachmanoff, vice president of talent development at NBC News, told The Nation. She says that NBC's military experts play an influential role behind the scenes, briefing executive producers and holding seminars for staffers that provide "texture for both on-air pieces and background." Defense contracts, she adds, are "not our interest."

That was just false. As I noted last week after I interviewed CNN's former anchor Aaron Brown, who offered a similar defense, these retired Generals -- certainly including McCaffrey -- repeatedly argued in support for the war and the ongoing occupation, not merely commented upon military tactics. But to NBC, the substantial financial interests of their "independent" military experts to advocate for the war were simply "not their interest." Of course, it's not all that surprising that NBC News doesn't consider these conflicts worth noting given that, as a subsidiary of General Electric, a corporation that also profits greatly from increased defense spending and wars, NBC News is plagued by the very same conflicts in its reporting on the Government's military policies.

* * * * *

Just consider what is going on here. The core credibility of war reporting by Brian Williams and NBC News has been severely undermined by a major NYT expose. That story involves likely illegal behavior by the Pentagon, in which NBC News appears to have been complicit, resulting in the deceitful presentation of highly biased and conflicted individuals as "independent" news analysts. Yet they refuse to tell their viewers about any of this, and refuse to address any of the questions that have been raised.

More amazingly still, when Brian Williams is forced by a virtual mob on his blog yesterday finally to address this issue -- something he really couldn't avoid doing given that, the day before, he found time to analyze seven other NYT articles -- Williams cited McCaffrey and Downing as proof that they did nothing wrong, and insists that his and their credibility simply ought to be beyond reproach because they are good, patriotic men. But those two individuals in particular had all kinds of ties to the Government, the defense industry, and ideological groups which gave them vested interests in vigorous pro-war advocacy -- ties which NBC News knew about and failed to disclose, all while presenting these individuals to their millions of viewers as "independent." Is there anyone who thinks that behavior is anything other than deeply corrupt?

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Insomniac
Yes Bush Deadenders.......it's far too much to read surely cutting into your Rish Limpie masturbation time.........so therefore............. THE FOLLOWING MUST BE LIES!!!!

(you could bleat something about the New York Times being anti-American and let it go at that, no?)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...iams/index.html

Wednesday April 30, 2008 07:00 EDT

Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story

It has now been more than ten days since the New York Times exposed the Pentagon's domestic propaganda program involving retired generals and, still, not a single major news network has even mentioned the story to their viewers, let alone responded to the numerous questions surrounding their own behavior. This steadfast blackout occurs despite the fact that the Pentagon propaganda program almost certainly violates numerous federal laws; both Democratic presidential candidates sternly denounced the Pentagon's conduct; and Congressional inquiries are already underway, all of which forced the Pentagon to announce that it suspended its program.

Still, there has not been a peep from the major news networks at the center of the storm, the integrity of whose reporting on the Iraq war is directly implicated by this story. Even establishment media defender Howard Kurtz called their ongoing failure to cover this story "pathetic."

Like Fox and CBS, NBC News outright refused to answer any questions about the allegations when asked by the NYT's David Bartsow, and its prime time anchor, Brian Williams, has delivered seven broadcasts since the story was published and has not uttered a word to NBC's viewers about any of it. Yesterday, I wrote about an entry on Williams' blog -- which he calls "The Daily Nightly" -- in which Williams found the time to mock one frivolous cultural puff piece after the next in the Sunday edition of the NYT, even as he still had refused even to acknowledge the expose in last Sunday's NYT that calls into serious question the truthfulness and reliability of his "journalism."

After I wrote about Williams' blog item yesterday, his blog was deluged with commenters angrily demanding to know why he has failed to address the NYT expose. In response, Williams wrote a new blog item last night in which he purports -- finally -- to respond to the story, and I can't recommend highly enough that it be read by anyone wanting to understand how our establishment journalist class thinks and acts.

The essence of Williams' response: he did absolutely nothing wrong. Nor did any of the military analysts used by NBC News. Nor did his network. These are all honest, patriotic men whose integrity is beyond reproach. Here's but a sampling of Williams' defense:

A few of you correctly noted I’ve yet to respond to the recent Times front-page article on the military analysts employed by the television networks, including this one.

I read the article with great interest. I've worked with two men since I've had this job -- both retired, heavily-decorated U.S. Army four-star Generals -- Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey. As I'm sure is obvious to even a casual viewer, I quickly entered into a close friendship with both men. . . .

All I can say is this: these two guys never gave what I considered to be the party line. They were tough, honest critics of the U.S. military effort in Iraq. If you've had any exposure to retired officers of that rank (and we've not had any five-star Generals in the modern era) then you know: these men are passionate patriots. In my dealings with them, they were also honest brokers. . . .

At no time did our analysts, on my watch or to my knowledge, attempt to push a rosy Pentagon agenda before our viewers. I think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that.

Williams argues that the two retired Generals whom he identified in particular -- Downing and McCaffrey -- voiced "harsh criticism of the Rumsfeld Pentagon and the war effort." As proof, he cites a McCaffrey quote from 2006 -- more then 3 years after we invaded Iraq -- in which McCaffrey said there was a civil war there and that "it's a very bad situation, and it's getting worse." He also said Downing was angry that we didn't use more troops for the invasion.

That is the sum and substance of Williams' response to allegations that these analysts were presented as "independent" despite having multiple political and financial ties which negated their independence. There is no indication that he has any plans to tell his viewers about the story. And he seems to think that this smug, dismissive response resolves the questions surrounding the behavior of NBC News. It doesn't. If fact, Williams' response -- and his citation to these two specific retired Generals -- raises far more questions than it answers.

* * * * *

Both McCaffrey and Downing were about as far from "independent" as a news analyst could possibly be. On November 15, 2002, a press release was issued announcing the formation of something called "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," which was devoted "to advocat[ing] freedom and democracy in Iraq." Its list of 25 members was filled to the brim with the standard cast of war-hungry neocons -- including Bill Kristol, Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle, Leon Wieseltier, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Eliot Cohen, and anti-Muslim "scholar" Bernard Lewis. Both Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing -- the two extremely independent "news sources" hailed yesterday by Brian Williams -- were two of its 25 founding members.

On the day of its formation, the group announced that they would meet later that day with then-National Security Adviser Condolleeza Rice to discuss Iraq. The group's President was quoted in the Press Release as follows: "We believe it is time to confront the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime by liberating the Iraqi people." Here was its stated purpose:

The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq will engage in educational and advocacy efforts to mobilize domestic and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny. The Committee is committed to work beyond the liberation of Iraq to the reconstruction of its economy and the establishment of political pluralism, democratic institutions, and the rule of law.

So this was a group devoted to building domestic support in the U.S. for the invasion of Iraq through so-called "educational and advocacy efforts." And NBC News then hired both Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing as supposedly "independent analysts" to opine to NBC's viewers about the war, and did so without ever once disclosing this affiliation to their viewers, without ever disclosing that they were dedicated to propagandizing on behalf of the Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq.

Beyond their ideological affiliations that negated their "independence," both McCaffrey and Downing had substantial ties to the defense industry which gave them strong financial incentives to advocate for the war. Worse, these ties were detailed all the way back in April of 2003 by The Nation, in an article entitled "TV's Conflicted Experts:

But some of these ex-generals also have ideological or financial stakes in the war. Many hold paid advisory board and executive positions at defense companies and serve as advisers for groups that promoted an invasion of Iraq. Their offscreen commitments raise questions about whether they are influenced by more than just "a lifetime of experience and objectivity"--in the words of Lieut. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a military analyst for NBC News--as they explain the risks of this war to the American people.

McCaffrey and his NBC colleague Col. Wayne Downing, who reports nightly from Kuwait, are both on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a Washington-based lobbying group formed last October to bolster public support for a war. Its stated mission is to "engage in educational advocacy efforts to mobilize US and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein," and among its targets are the US and European media. The group is chaired by Bruce Jackson, former vice president of defense giant Lockheed Martin (manufacturer of the F-117 Nighthawk, the F-16 Fighting Falcon and other aircraft in use in Iraq), and includes such neocon luminaries as former Defense Policy Board chair Richard Perle. Downing has also served as an unpaid lobbyist and adviser to the Iraqi National Congress, an Administration-backed (and bankrolled) opposition group that stands to profit from regime change in Iraq.

NBC News has yet to disclose those or other involvements that give McCaffrey a vested interest in Operation Iraqi Freedom. McCaffrey, who commanded an infantry division in the Gulf War, is now on the board of Mitretek, Veritas Capital and two Veritas companies, Raytheon Aerospace and Integrated Defense Technologies--all of which have multimillion-dollar government defense contracts. Despite that, IDT is floundering -- its stock price has fallen by half since March 2002 -- a situation that one stock analyst says war could remedy. Since IDT is a specialist in tank upgrades, the company stands to benefit significantly from a massive ground war.

The same article details that Downing had many of the same problems, including the fact that he sat on the "board of directors at Metal Storm Ltd., a ballistics-technology company that has contracts with US and Australian defense departments." None of this was ever disclosed to NBC's viewers -- not once -- as McCaffrey and Downing were paraded out by Williams and other NBC reporters as "independent" military analysts touting the need to invade and occupy Iraq.

* * * * *

In fact, rather than disclose these obviously relevant allegiances, Williams -- throughout 2003 and well after -- presented McCaffrey to his then-CNBC audience as the definitively objective, independent analyst, with introductions like this one, from the November 24, 2003 broadcast, as extremely typical:

WILLIAMS: Retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey joins us from Seattle tonight. He earned three Purple Hearts in Vietnam, two Distinguished Service Crosses, was a division commander during the first Gulf War.

These days, he's a professor at West Point and an NBC News military analyst, and I know him well enough to know that he's going to want to say a word here, General, and please feel free, about the value of sergeant majors in the U.S. Army who are as talented and as beloved as that man.

GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY (RET.), U.S. ARMY, NBC MILITARY ANALYST: Well, you know, you're right on the money, Brian.

As always, there was not a word to NBC's viewers that this "NBC Military analyst" was on the Board of Advisers of a neocon group devoted to persuading Americans of the need to invade and occupy Iraq, nor a word about his financial investments in the policies he was advocating. Just look at the completely deceitful way that Williams presented McCaffrey repeatedly, and the type of "independent analysis" to which NBC viewers were consequently subjected. From the September 8, 2003 broadcast:

WILLIAMS: We are joined now from Washington by retired four-star general Barry McCaffrey, one of the foremost military experts currently in civilian life. He was a division commander during the first Gulf War, now a professor at West Point, and an NBC News military analyst.

General, let's start with what Senator Harkin just said. You were far from a protester of Vietnam, you were on the other end of it as a combatant. He said it smells like Vietnam, so do the bills coming in for it. Do you concur at all?

GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY (RET.), U.S. ARMY: No, not at all. I think there could be two inept metaphors in Vietnam applied to either Central America, Iraq, or any of the current crises we're facing. That was a very different, externally supported war by a homogeneous people who were essentially on the tail end of a struggle against colonialism, using communism as a vector.

My gosh, this is nothing like that. I think Iraq -- By the way, just to get to the heart of the matter, Brian, I actually think the president's speech was an item of tremendous political courage. He has now faced up to -- what I think he was getting from Secretary Rumsfeld was war on the cheap.

And now he's saying, We got to succeed, we got to have resources, forces, U.N. legitimacy. This is a step in the right direction . . . . But we better stay the course, or we're in trouble..

Here is the dialogue those two shared on Mission Accomplished Day -- May 1, 2003:

WILLIAMS: With us tonight to look back at the military operation and perhaps what today means as a media event and a significant event in the lives of the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen is retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey who, of course, commanded the 24th Mechanized during the first Gulf War. He is an NBC News analyst on military affairs.

General, let's start with today. The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing. This must be very meaningful to the United States military.

General BARRY McCAFFREY (US Army): Oh, yeah, I think it's a huge shot in the arm to the morale of--of the entire armed forces, never mind to remind Americans why we pay for these 10-carrier battle groups. I mean, this is a -- just an enormous source of military power and the ability to influence events sometimes without fighting.

In the weeks leading up to the invasion, McCaffrey was frequently on numerous NBC shows, including Williams', presented as an independent expert. On the February 18, 2003 edition of Williams' CNBC show, he was on with fellow war-supporter Michael O'Hanlon -- that was "balance" -- to talk about the risks of the war, and McCaffrey said:

Well, I think that the Iraqis have no good options, and so what we're going to do, we will encounter chemical weapons. It will be abject misery. Some will be killed by them. It won't change the military operation. The biological weapons we hope will be deterred by some pretty strong background threats. I think what we're going to have to do is go in and take down 60,000 Republican Guard troops in stiff urban combat in Baghdad and Tikrit, and that's going to look, at rifle company commander level, like World War II for about five days.

I could go on for pages printing similar exchanges Williams had with McCaffrey throughout 2003. The same is true for Downing, who was repeatedly presented to NBC viewers as an independent analyst without his multiple political and financial affiliations ever once being disclosed (Months before the war began, in November, McCaffrey was a guest on an MSNBC show to tout the launch of the new pro-war group; when McCaffrey was presented as an independent analyst throughout 2003 and beyond, that connection was never mentioned).

It's true, as Williams points out as though it is exculpatory, that -- like Bill Kristol and plenty of other hard-core war supporters -- McCaffrey wanted more U.S. troops in Iraq. He even signed a 2005 letter from PNAC -- along with the likes of Kristol, the mighty Kagan Brothers, Max Boot, Frank Gaffney, Michael O'Hanlon and Peter Beinart -- demanding that more troops be deployed to Iraq (the Kagans, O'Hanlon and Beinart -- despite their relative youth -- were all unavailable for duty).

It really ought to go without saying by now that advocating more troops for the War hardly made one a "war critic" nor did it demonstrate independence from the Bush administration's propaganda campaign for the War. To the contrary, the fact that both McCaffrey and Downing had financial ties to the defense industry which would stand to profit from policies entailing more defense spending further calls into question their independence, rather than resolves those questions. As The Nation reported back in 2003:

McCaffrey has recently emerged as the most outspoken military critic of Rumsfeld's approach to the war, but his primary complaint is that "armor and artillery don't count" enough. In McCaffrey's recent MSNBC commentary, he exclaimed enthusiastically, "Thank God for the Abrams tank and . . . the Bradley fighting vehicle," and added for good measure that the "war isn't over until we've got a tank sitting on top of Saddam's bunker." In March alone, IDT [on whose Board of Directors McCaffrey sat] received more than $14 million worth of contracts relating to Abrams and Bradley machinery parts and support hardware.

At the very least, NBC viewers ought to have been told of the numerous, substantial ties which these "independent" military analysts had.

* * * * *

What makes all of this even more astounding -- and what makes Williams' glib dismissal of these issues yesterday all the more indefensible -- is that all of these conflicts and all of this deceit was well-known long before the NYT article added more details. As I've repeatedly noted, concerns over the use by news networks of retired Generals masquerading as "independent analysts" were raised for years in multiple venues -- including by the NYT and by the astoundingly prescient Colman McCarthy in The Washington Post, and the networks simply ignored those concerns, marching along with their pro-war parade of military analysts.

But far worse, the specific, undisclosed conflicts of both McCaffrey and Downing -- the two Generals cited by Williams to prove NBC did nothing wrong -- were disclosed more than four years ago by The Nation. And there is no way that NBC and Williams can claim not to have known about them, since The Nation described those ties as specifically as could be. Did NBC ask the Generals about these ties? Did they consider disclosing them to their viewers? Did the undislcosed ties violate NBC News policy? Does NBC have policies now to prevent this from happening again? Who knows? NBC refuses to comment on any of this.

In fact, it appears that NBC was informed of these specific conflicts by The Nation four years ago. From The Nation article:

The networks don't seem too concerned about what the analysts do on their own time. "We are employing them for their military expertise, not their political views," Elena Nachmanoff, vice president of talent development at NBC News, told The Nation. She says that NBC's military experts play an influential role behind the scenes, briefing executive producers and holding seminars for staffers that provide "texture for both on-air pieces and background." Defense contracts, she adds, are "not our interest."

That was just false. As I noted last week after I interviewed CNN's former anchor Aaron Brown, who offered a similar defense, these retired Generals -- certainly including McCaffrey -- repeatedly argued in support for the war and the ongoing occupation, not merely commented upon military tactics. But to NBC, the substantial financial interests of their "independent" military experts to advocate for the war were simply "not their interest." Of course, it's not all that surprising that NBC News doesn't consider these conflicts worth noting given that, as a subsidiary of General Electric, a corporation that also profits greatly from increased defense spending and wars, NBC News is plagued by the very same conflicts in its reporting on the Government's military policies.

* * * * *

Just consider what is going on here. The core credibility of war reporting by Brian Williams and NBC News has been severely undermined by a major NYT expose. That story involves likely illegal behavior by the Pentagon, in which NBC News appears to have been complicit, resulting in the deceitful presentation of highly biased and conflicted individuals as "independent" news analysts. Yet they refuse to tell their viewers about any of this, and refuse to address any of the questions that have been raised.

More amazingly still, when Brian Williams is forced by a virtual mob on his blog yesterday finally to address this issue -- something he really couldn't avoid doing given that, the day before, he found time to analyze seven other NYT articles -- Williams cited McCaffrey and Downing as proof that they did nothing wrong, and insists that his and their credibility simply ought to be beyond reproach because they are good, patriotic men. But those two individuals in particular had all kinds of ties to the Government, the defense industry, and ideological groups which gave them vested interests in vigorous pro-war advocacy -- ties which NBC News knew about and failed to disclose, all while presenting these individuals to their millions of viewers as "independent." Is there anyone who thinks that behavior is anything other than deeply corrupt?

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
ZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Exceeded your attention span, did it? So you re-posted the whole thing just to tell us that you're not up for anything deeper or longer than a comic book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200805130001

Tue, May 13, 2008 8:25am ET

Military analysts named in Times exposé appeared or were quoted more than 4,500 times on broadcast nets, cables, NPR

Summary: A New York Times article detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries, reporting that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in the Times article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR.

On April 20, The New York Times published an article by investigative reporter David Barstow that detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries. Barstow reported that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts, many of whom have clients or work for companies with an interest in obtaining Pentagon contracts, "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in Barstow's article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR in segments covering the Iraq war both before and after the invasion, as well as numerous other national security or government policy issues.

A spreadsheet listing each of the analysts' appearances documented by Media Matters is available here.

The following chart lists 20 analysts included in Barstow's article, the network or networks on which each analyst appeared, and the number of appearances made by each analyst since January 1, 2002, as tabulated by Media Matters:

Military analyst

Networks

Number of appearances identified by Media Matters

David L. Grange

CNN, CNN Headline News

921

Donald W. Shepperd

CNN

713

Barry R. McCaffrey

NBC, MSNBC, CNBC

642

James Marks

CNN

299

Rick Francona

NBC, MSNBC, CNBC

296

Wayne A. Downing

NBC, MSNBC, CNBC

270

Robert H. Scales Jr.

Fox News, National Public Radio

176 (Fox News)

73 (NPR)*

William V. Cowan

Fox News

189

Kenneth Allard

NBC, MSNBC, CNBC

180

Thomas G. McInerney

Fox News

144

Montgomery Meigs

NBC, MSNBC, CNBC

125

Robert L. Maginnis

Fox News

113

William L. Nash

ABC, ABC News Now

96

Paul E. Vallely

Fox News

81

Charles T. Nash

Fox News

54

Robert S. Bevelacqua

Fox News

48

Jeffrey D. McCausland

CBS, CBS Radio Network

43

Timur J. Eads

Fox News

28

Joseph W. Ralston

CBS, CBS Radio Network

19

John C. Garrett

Fox News

8

NOTE: Transcripts for all programs on CNN are available in the Nexis database, but for the other cable news networks transcripts are available for only some shows.

*This figure includes 31 appearances from 2005 and later, when -- according to NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik -- Scales was no longer serving as an official NPR consultant but rather was an unpaid guest.

Methodology

Media Matters used the Nexis database to tabulate appearances by analysts on networks with which they were affiliated that included discussions of issues related to national security or U.S. government policy. Instances in which analysts appeared on networks other than those with which they were affiliated were not counted. Media Matters counted as appearances both instances in which an analyst appeared as a guest on a show -- either live during the show, or in a pre-taped interview aired during the show -- and instances in which a report included a clip of an analyst's commentary. The study was limited to appearances made after January 1, 2002.

Re-airings of news programs in their entirety were excluded from the study. However, instances in which the same report, interview, or quote was aired on different shows or more than once during the course of the same program were counted as separate appearances in this study. If an analyst appeared several separate times during the same show, Media Matters counted each one as a distinct appearance.

Nexis includes transcripts for all news programs on CNN but for the other cable news networks transcripts are available for only some shows; appearances on programs whose transcripts do not appear in Nexis were not included in this study.

Finally, the Times article reported that some of the analysts "pointed out, accurately, that they did not always agree with the administration or each other" and that "[m]any analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war." In conducting this study, Media Matters did not assess whether individual instances of commentary -- or the analysts themselves -- were supportive of administration policy.

—L.K.A., M.A., T.A., M.B.B., M.M.B., K.E., J.M., J.S., A.J.W., & L.Y.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Insomniac
http://mediamatters.org/items/200805130001

Tue, May 13, 2008 8:25am ET

Military analysts named in Times exposé appeared or were quoted more than 4,500 times on broadcast nets, cables, NPR

Summary: A New York Times article detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries, reporting that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in the Times article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR.

On April 20, The New York Times published an article by investigative reporter David Barstow that detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries. Barstow reported that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts, many of whom have clients or work for companies with an interest in obtaining Pentagon contracts, "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in Barstow's article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR in segments covering the Iraq war both before and after the invasion, as well as numerous other national security or government policy issues.

A spreadsheet listing each of the analysts' appearances documented by Media Matters is available here.

The following chart lists 20 analysts included in Barstow's article, the network or networks on which each analyst appeared, and the number of appearances made by each analyst since January 1, 2002, as tabulated by Media Matters:

Military analyst

Networks

Number of appearances identified by Media Matters

David L. Grange

CNN, CNN Headline News

921

Donald W. Shepperd

CNN

713

Barry R. McCaffrey

NBC, MSNBC, CNBC

642

James Marks

CNN

299

Rick Francona

NBC, MSNBC, CNBC

296

Wayne A. Downing

NBC, MSNBC, CNBC

270

Robert H. Scales Jr.

Fox News, National Public Radio

176 (Fox News)

73 (NPR)*

William V. Cowan

Fox News

189

Kenneth Allard

NBC, MSNBC, CNBC

180

Thomas G. McInerney

Fox News

144

Montgomery Meigs

NBC, MSNBC, CNBC

125

Robert L. Maginnis

Fox News

113

William L. Nash

ABC, ABC News Now

96

Paul E. Vallely

Fox News

81

Charles T. Nash

Fox News

54

Robert S. Bevelacqua

Fox News

48

Jeffrey D. McCausland

CBS, CBS Radio Network

43

Timur J. Eads

Fox News

28

Joseph W. Ralston

CBS, CBS Radio Network

19

John C. Garrett

Fox News

8

NOTE: Transcripts for all programs on CNN are available in the Nexis database, but for the other cable news networks transcripts are available for only some shows.

*This figure includes 31 appearances from 2005 and later, when -- according to NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik -- Scales was no longer serving as an official NPR consultant but rather was an unpaid guest.

Methodology

Media Matters used the Nexis database to tabulate appearances by analysts on networks with which they were affiliated that included discussions of issues related to national security or U.S. government policy. Instances in which analysts appeared on networks other than those with which they were affiliated were not counted. Media Matters counted as appearances both instances in which an analyst appeared as a guest on a show -- either live during the show, or in a pre-taped interview aired during the show -- and instances in which a report included a clip of an analyst's commentary. The study was limited to appearances made after January 1, 2002.

Re-airings of news programs in their entirety were excluded from the study. However, instances in which the same report, interview, or quote was aired on different shows or more than once during the course of the same program were counted as separate appearances in this study. If an analyst appeared several separate times during the same show, Media Matters counted each one as a distinct appearance.

Nexis includes transcripts for all news programs on CNN but for the other cable news networks transcripts are available for only some shows; appearances on programs whose transcripts do not appear in Nexis were not included in this study.

Finally, the Times article reported that some of the analysts "pointed out, accurately, that they did not always agree with the administration or each other" and that "[m]any analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war." In conducting this study, Media Matters did not assess whether individual instances of commentary -- or the analysts themselves -- were supportive of administration policy.

—L.K.A., M.A., T.A., M.B.B., M.M.B., K.E., J.M., J.S., A.J.W., & L.Y.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Not only is it completely retarded to even go to the trouble of making a post like this, but the fact that you can't type when you're asleep just takes it to a whole new level of stupid.

Nice failure, retard. Go troll schoolchildren instead--that's more your speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Insomniac
Not only is it completely retarded to even go to the trouble of making a post like this, but the fact that you can't type when you're asleep just takes it to a whole new level of stupid.

Nice failure, retard. Go troll schoolchildren instead--that's more your speed.

Sorry 'bout that, I fell asleep with my hand on the keyboard. His posts are better than a sleeping pill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Sorry 'bout that, I fell asleep with my hand on the keyboard.

Yeah, and then it floated so daintily to click the "Add Reply" button, right? Retard.

His posts are better than a sleeping pill.

Yes, I know that's been the joke all along, problem is it's a lame joke, and the execution was ABYSMAL. Your wit's about as sharp as a wet paper towel.

Don't quit your day job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paul
"The news in the U.S. is bought and paid for"? It must be that vast right-wing conspiracy again.

Are you really foolish enough to think that the kind of money that stands behind corporate empires doesn't influence corporate policies?

How silly of me to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Are you really foolish enough to think that the kind of money that stands behind corporate empires doesn't influence corporate policies?

How silly of me to ask.

Of course not. There's no question CBS, NBC and ABC are in the liberal tank (or in Loony Lefty speak;

influence corporate policies). Fox is the only news outlet that will give you "fair and balanced" reporting

(that's why they're the #1 cable news channel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this Memorial Day, remember the US service members that died for truly noble causes for this and other nations, and ALSO PLEASE remember those US service men and women that died and became maimed trusting completely corrupt and absurdly hypocritical US leadership that did nothing but advance the obscene fortunes of their privleged goombas while wildly soiling America's traditional leading image of justice and freedom on this earth.

A very timely progression in this thread............send it to someone you respect.

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1356

House Passes Amendment Calling for an Investigation of the Pentagon’s “Information Dominance” Program

May 22nd, 2008 by Karina

Last month, the New York Times published an article outlining how the Pentagon set up private briefings for a network of “military experts,” who often held financial stakes dependent on continued Pentagon access, in order to achieve “information dominance” in the American media. As Chairman Skelton stated in April, “it all comes down to trust and credibility. And it would be a dangerous thing for the American people to lose trust in the Pentagon, in our retired officer corps, and in the press, each of which has a critical role to play in preserving our nation’s freedoms.”

Tonight, the House passed an amendment introduced by Reps. Hodes, DeFazio, and DeLauro to the Defense Authorization Act for FY2009 requiring that “not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense and the Comptroller General of the United States shall each conduct a study of, and submit to the Congress a report on, the extent to which the Department of Defense has violated the prohibition on propaganda” and defines propaganda as “any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of the people of the United States in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.”

On passage of the amendment, Speaker Pelosi said:

In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower stated that “only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” The Pentagon media influence program reported by the New York Times struck at the heart of this principle – not only denying citizens the knowledge they deserve but also using the media to manipulate public opinion, and as a consequence, damaging our democracy.

The President and members of his Administration led the country to war on the basis of unproven assertions, later confirmed to be false, and have continued to misrepresent the truth on the ground. The Hodes-DeFazio-DeLauro Amendment which prohibits the Department of Defense from using funds for propaganda purposes and initiates a GAO and IG investigative report into past use of propaganda, is a vital step toward restoring the public’s faith in information stemming from the Pentagon.

Rep. Hodes:

Rep. Hodes:“The American people were spun by Bush Administration “message multipliers.” They were fed Administration talking points, believing they were getting independent military analysis. Days after, the Pentagon suspended the program. The news outlets have been remarkably silent. The Department of Defense Inspector General has begun an internal review of the program but given the possibility as well as decision makers in this Congress were misled about the war in Iraq, I believe it is absolutely critical that a public investigation happen that is transparent to this body as well as to the American people. Congress cannot allow an Administration to manipulate the public on false propaganda on matters of war and national security.”

Chairman Skelton:

Chairman Skelton:“The fact that there were a good number of former military officers that were given special access, many of whom had conflicts of interest in various defense businesses and they are considered military television analysts - you see people in the military are trusted by Americans. People who are retired military are trusted by Americans. And what’s interesting is that this special group had special access to information in the Pentagon and obviously used that in their analysis…what’s real interesting is the fact that - their special access was canceled.”

Rep. DeFazio:

Rep. DeFazio:“We have prohibited propaganda directed at the people of the United States using taxpayer dollars by the Pentagon. What happened here was a violation of that law and that anybody would stand here on this floor and say that that law, which we have had in place for more than 50 years, should be repealed or undermined by one narrow-minded Administration or Vice President Cheney or anyone else who wants to manipulate intelligence to the Congress and American people to a war that should not have been initiated. An informed and free press is critical to our system of government to have informed decision makers here. Maybe you don’t want to hear the truth, but I do.”

Rep. DeLauro:

Rep. DeLauro:“This is propaganda, it is a military and industrial complex in which military analysts, many who have ties with the contractors making money off of the war and parroting DOD talking points on the air to mislead the American public and the TV networks did nothing to prevent it. And I would just tell my colleagues that if you voted for the DOD Appropriations Bill last year, you voted to prohibit this. You’ve done it since 2002. Donald Rumsfeld met with these guys 18 times, told them what to say, and then, my friends, DOD hired a company to track their remarks on the TV networks.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...